Photo: Freepik (for illustration purposes only)
‘S$44 GONE!’: Bakery shop employee claims manager cut her pay by half for missing sales target, favours ‘pretty colleague’
SINGAPORE: A 17-year-old bakery shop employee vented on social media after her manager cut her daily pay of S$88 by 50% for “talking” during the shift and for failing to meet the store’s sales target.
She detailed her experience on the r/SGexams subreddit on Tuesday (March 4), explaining that she had been scheduled for the 2 to 10 pm shift alongside two other staff members.
Given the length of the eight-hour shift, she mentioned that they conversed occasionally while carrying out their tasks. Despite this, they managed to generate approximately S$2,500 in sales, which they thought “was good enough,” as their usual daily earnings typically ranged between S$1,500 and S$1,600.
However, to their surprise, their manager deemed the sales insufficient, reprimanded them for underperforming, and enforced a 50% pay cut as punishment.
“Our manager said that we didn’t earn enough that day and that they were gonna cut our pay by 50% of that slot. They pay $11 per hour, so 8 hours (is) S$88, S$44 GONE,” she said.
She went on to argue that the pay cut was unjustified, as there were no contractual terms stating that wages were tied to sales performance.
“Nowhere does it state that our pay is based on performance—there were NO terms and conditions (mentioning this) so cutting the pay is not okay for ‘talking.’”
“Maybe if we messed up or we destroyed produce or, heck, EVEN STOLE, I understand, but cutting pay because sales never hit?? We never even did anything wrong? It’s not like we avoid customers, and our hands and mouth are not connected; we CAN MULTITASK??” she said.
This was not the worst part, though. The employee said that one of the staff members she was with that day—whom she referred to as “A” in her post—was treated a whole lot differently because of “how pretty she was.”
“He (our manager) called ‘A’ about the pay cut thing, guilt-tripping her by saying that in order for them to work together, he had to shift the original people elsewhere,” the employee wrote.
“Throughout the 30-minute call, he KEPT bringing up how pretty she was and how ‘if I was buying, I would want to buy the pastry from you’ not just once or twice, but more than 5 times. This guy has a wife and kids. Why are you being so creepy and weird??? He even told ‘A’ to come down for coffee and that he would discuss her pay and what she wants to earn, etc. EW,” she continued.
The employee further alleged that her manager displayed clear favouritism, assigning desirable shifts only to employees he liked while treating others unfairly.
Additionally, she criticised the manager for avoiding direct confrontation, stating that instead of addressing her alleged excessive phone use with her, he chose to speak about it to her pretty colleague, “A”.
“You couldn’t face me and tell me what I’m doing wrong?? Still, go behind my back telling my friend why you do me and stuff. He even says over 100 something employees, he only likes 20, and she’s one of them. WHAT IS THIS BIAS FAVORITISM?” the employee expressed.
“Just because I’m ugly doesn’t mean you can anyhow cut pay and talk bad about me, eh. S$44 I can earn back via another job, but the fact he brought up my name is the reason I’m so damn angry. Sorry, I’m not visually appealing, but that doesn’t mean you can suddenly scold or talk about me. It doesn’t work like that. I’M SELLING THE PRODUCT, NOT MY FACE??” she added.
Beyond her personal grievances, she also warned others about the work environment at the bakery, describing it as highly competitive and toxic.
“Just don’t work there, honestly, the environment is not good, everyone is so competitive and stuck up, and the desserts aren’t freshly made; it’s all from a freezer, and you could get like 4/5-day-old pastry if you’re unlucky,” she said.
“Anyways, thanks for reading this far, sorry for the immature rant, but I really needed to burst; otherwise, I would’ve ended up punching my manager, not gonna lie…”
“Salary deductions like this are not legal”
In the discussion thread, one Singaporean Redditor responded, “He has no power to cut your pay. If he does, bring this up to MOM (Ministry of Manpower).”
Another Redditor agreed, writing, “Salary deductions like this are not legal. Bring this up to MOM/TADM (Tripartite Alliance for Dispute Management). From (an) HR student.”
According to the MOM, employers can only deduct an employee’s salary in certain situations. This includes being absent from work, damaging company property like tools or vehicles, or staying in employer-provided housing.
Deductions are also allowed for services or benefits approved by the Commissioner for Labour and agreed upon by the employee, such as childcare or recreational facilities. Other valid deductions include Central Provident Fund (CPF) contributions, advances, loans, overpaid salaries, unearned benefits, and any other deductions the employee agrees to in writing (which can be revoked at any time).
Outside of these cases, employers aren’t allowed to deduct wages for things that don’t directly benefit the employee, like liquidated damages.
Additionally, employers can’t deduct more than 50% of a worker’s salary in a single pay period, except in the final paycheck when employment ends.
Read also: SG worker claims her actual job differs from the job description, asks, ‘Is this ethical?’
Featured image by freepik (for illustration purposes only)
